1 October 1, 2010

BY EMAIL TRANSMISSION

Brian Finneran Oregon DEQ Air Quality Division
811 SW Sixth Avenue Portland, Oregon 97204 Email: NewBART4PGE@deq.state.or.us

RE: NPCA Comments on Proposed 2010 Revisions to Regional Haze Rules Applicable to Boardman Plant.

Dear Mr. Finneran:

National Parks Conservation Association (N PCA) respectfully submits the following comments on the Oregon Department of E nvironmental Quality’ s (DEQ) proposed 2010 revisions to the regional haze rules that addr ess best available retrofit technology (BART) and reasonable progress requirements for Po rtland General Electric Company’s (PGE) Boardman coal-fired powe r plant (Boardman) located in Boardman, Oregon.

NPCA works to protect and enhance Ameri ca’s national parks for present and future generations. We represent over 325,000 members that care deeply about protecting air quality in our national parks including thos e of the Northwest. We are encouraged by DEQ’s revised regional haze proposal and suppo rt reductions from the Boardman facility that will result in the most effective and prom pt restoration of visibility to our national parks. We also commend DEQ for appropria tely evaluating the cumulative impact of Boardman’s pollutant emissions on all 14 Cl ass I areas within its (300 km) airshed.

I. Background

In 2008, DEQ proposed BART limits for Boardman that assumed the plant would operate
at least until 2040. The BART limits were ba sed on the installation and operation of new pollution controls at Boardman to reduce visi bility impairing nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide and particulate matter. NPCA submitted comments on DEQ’s proposal on January 20, 2009, and those comments ar e incorporated by reference here (ATTACHMENT A). Oregon’s Environmen tal Quality Commission adopted DEQ’s proposed BART regulations for Boardman on June 19, 2009.

In the spring of 2010, however, PGE submitted a new BART plan to the Environmental Quality Division that proposed eliminating th e installation of new pollution controls at2 Boardman in exchange for the closure of the plant in 2020. On June 17, 2010, the Commission rejected PGE’s pla n, but directed DEQ to examine other BART options for Boardman based on a wider rang e of closure scenarios.

On September 1, 2010, DEQ submitted for public review and comment its revised BART options for Boardman. DEQ’s 2010 proposed revisions include one “no closure” option
and three new closure scenario s (closure within 5 years of EPA approval, and closure by 2018 and 2020) with three attenda nt BART determinations. PGE is required to choose from one of the four options by 2014.

II. Comments on 2010 Proposed Revision s to Boardman BART Limits

The one “no closure” and three “closure” opti ons are illustrated in the following table, borrowed from DEQ’s 2010 Proposed Rulemaking Announcement.

NPCA has significant concerns regardi ng DEQ’s “no closure” option, which are described in Section A below. NPCA gene rally supports the three closure options as BART for Boardman, as described in Secti on B below, as long as DEQ modifies them3 after correcting inflated cost estimates and underestimated benefits. Providing for the early closure of Boardman should, to the ex tent Boardman’s retired power output is replaced by efficiency gains a nd less-polluting sources, result in greater visibility, health and ecological benefits comp ared to continued Boardman operation. We therefore applaud DEQ’s application of BART that allo ws the timely retirement of Boardman as part of its regional haze compliance plan.

A. The No Closure Option.

The “no closure” BART limits applicable to Boardman, and found at proposed OAR 340-
223-0030 and OAR 340-223-0040 can be summarized as follows:

NO

x Limits

By January 1, 2012, PGE is required to dem onstrate compliance with a nitrogen oxide (NO

x ) emission limit of 0.28 lb/MMBtu (30-da y rolling average) and 0.23 lb/MMBtu (12 month rolling average) based on the use of new low NO

x burners and modified
overfire air. If PGE demons trates the above limits cannot be achieved DEQ is given the discretion, without further public involvement, to extend the NO

x limit compliance date to July 1, 2014. To the extent an extension is granted by DEQ, after July 1, 2014 PGE is required to meet an emission limit of 0.23 lb/MMBtu on a 30-day rolling average based on the use of selective noncatalytic reducti on (SNCR). By January 1, 2018, Boardman is required to meet a NO

x emission limit of 0.070 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling average) based on selective catalytic redu ction (SCR) technology.

SO 2 Limits

By January 1, 2015, PGE is required to dem onstrate compliance with a sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) limit of 0.12 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling average), based on the installation and operation of semi-dry flue gas scrubbers.

Particulate Matter Limits

By January 1, 2015, PGE is required to demons trate compliance with a particulate matter (PM) limit of 0.012 lb/MMBtu (3-hour averag e), based on the inst allation and operation of pulse jet fabric filter technology.

Comments Regarding the No Closure Option

NPCA believes the NO

x , SO 2 and PM limits set forth above do not reflect the best demonstrated system of continuous emission reduction that can be achieved at Boardman and thus does not reflect or comply with BART requirements. NPCA therefore urges DEQ to significantly strengthen Boardman’s “no closure” option.

As an initial matter, DEQ’s NO

x , SO 2 and PM emission limits should not include an exclusion of emissions during startup and s hutdown. The obligation to meet emission4 limits under the Clean Air Act is “continuous.” Moreover, the averaging times for SO 2 and NO

x are sufficiently long to accommodate any minor emission deviations during startup and shutdown, and no startup or shut down exception is warranted for the PM limit
because fabric filters are immune to emi ssion variations during these events.

With respect to the specific emission limits, DEQ’s “no closure” final NO

x limit of 0.07 lb/MMBtu on a 30-day rolling average only reflects a 70% SCR NO

x control efficiency after combustion controls. This is contrary to the performance r ecord of current SCR
retrofits and new installati ons that regularly reduce NO

x emissions by 90% or better. According to DEQ’s “no closure” BART determination, NO

x emissions from Boardman after combustion controls are required to m eet a limit of at least 0.28 lb/MMBtu on a 30- day rolling average. The installation and operation of SCR (acknowledged by DEQ to be cost effective at $3,190/ton removed) therefor e should result in a 90% reduction of that emission rate, or 0.028 lb/MMBtu. In other words, DEQ’s final, “no closure” BART
determination for NO

x is over two times too lax.

DEQ’s “no closure” final SO 2 emission limit of 0.12 lb/MMBtu on a 30-day rolling average is even farther from what is BA RT. There is no ques tion that the current generation of wet SO 2 scrubbers can achieve 95% control efficiency. There also is no question that Boardman’s current, uncontrolled SO 2 emission rate is 0.61 lb/MMBtu.
Thus BART for SO 2 at Boardman should reflect a 95% reduction of 0.61 lb/MMBtu, or .030 lb/MMBtu. DEQ’s proposed SO 2 limit of 0.12 lb/MMBtu is therefore four times too
lax.

Moreover, even assuming that a semi-dry scrubber represents BART for Boardman, emission limits reflecting better than 90% SO 2 control have recently been imposed for newly constructed power plants burning coal similar to that used at Boardman. The Newmont, White Pine and Dry Fork plants, for example, all have SO 2 emission limits with semi-dry scrubbers that are be tween 0.065 – 0.070 lb/MMBtu. Because PGE employs no SO 2 scrubber technology whatsoever, installation of a new scrubber at Boardman would be equivalent to the installa tion of a new scrubber at a new plant. Thus an emission limit of no greater than 0 .065 lb/MMBtu should be imposed as SO 2 BART
for Boardman.

The wet scrubber option fits well within DEQ’ s appropriate $7,300/ton cost effectiveness threshold. According to Attachment B to DEQ’s September 1, 2010 revised BART Report, over a 20-year lifetime the cost e ffectiveness of wet scrubbing per ton of SO 2 removal is $4,474. The cost of semi-dry scrubbing is even less: $3,285 per ton. Id . To the extent PGE is allowed to use semi-dry scr ubbing rather than wet, it should be required
to meet an emission limit as close to what would have been achieved using cost-effective wet scrubbing.

DEQ’s “no closure” particulate matter limit should require complian ce to be determined by continuous PM CEMs. The current method of determining compliance, one stack test no less than once every 5 years, is plainly insu fficient to ensure continuous compliance.5 B. The Three Closure Options

The “closure” BART limits applicable to Boardman, and found at proposed OAR 340- 223-0050 through OAR 340-223-0080, can be summarized as follows:

Option 1: Closure by December 31, 2020

Option 1 would require PGE to meet (a) a NO

x limit of 0.19 on a 30-day rolling average basis, an SO 2 limit of 0.12 lb/MMBtu on a 30-day rolli ng average basis, and a particulate
matter limit of 0.012 lb/MMBtu on a 3 hour basi s by 2014 and (b) retire the facility by
2020. The SO 2 limit would require the installation of a semi-dry scrubber, and the PM limit would require the installation of fabric filters.

Option 2: Closure by December 31, 2018

Option 2 would require PGE to (a) meet a NO

x limit of 0.19 on a 30-day rolling average basis by 2014 and (b) retire the facility by 2018. Neither SCR for NOx, or scrubbers for

SO 2 , would be required.

Option 3: Closure within five years of EPA approval

Option 3 would require PGE to (a) install minimal NO

x combustion controls to meet a

NO

x emission limit of at least 0.28 lb/MMBtu on a 30-day rolling aver age basis, and (b) retire the facility within five years from the date of SIP approval by EPA.

. Comments Regarding the Three Closure Options

NPCA generally supports the three closure options as BART for Boardman. Nevertheless, a number of modifications are warranted as described below.

Applicable to all options, whether the cu rrent regulatory language proposed by DEQ would actually result in the “closure” of Boar dman is unclear. Each closure option states that it only applies to the “Foster-Wheeler boile r” at Boardman. To ensure no other coalfired boiler could be installe d at Boardman we request DEQ strike the commercial name
of the boiler from OAR 340-223-0020 thr ough OAR 340-223-0090 and replace it with either “any coal-fired boiler” or “the Bo ardman coal-fired power plant.”

Also applicable to all options, DEQ’s regulatory language at OAR 340-223-0050(3) should be tightened to ensure ultimate comp liance with whatever option is selected. First, the “Foster-Wheeler” identification shou ld be stricken as di scussed above. Second, the regulation should specify that if PGE con tinues to operate Boardman as a coal-fired facility after its selected closure deadlin e the operating permit for Boardman shall be deemed void. Third, to avoid any uncertainty regarding the availabil ity of relief due to PGE non-compliance, the regulation should exp licitly state that the state, EPA and citizens may apply for both injunctiv e and civil penalty relief.6 With respect to Option 1, th at requires closure by 2020, we in corporate by reference the National Park Service Comments submitted to DEQ on October 1, 2010, including specifically NPS’s Low NO

x Burner (LNB), Over-fire Air (OFA), and Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) cost assessment and estimation of visibility benefit. We agree with NPS that DEQ and PGE have overestimated the cost s of this suite of controls, overestimated the number of years it would take to amortize the costs for this grouping of controls and underestimated the pollution reduc tion capabilities and thus vi sibility benefits they are
able to achieve.

When evaluating current vendor pollution contro l cost estimates and industry reports for Option 1 in accordance with EPA’s Control Co st Manual we believe that SCR becomes the cost effective technology choice for Boardman. SCR is capable of reducing NO

x emissions by 90%+, and even with NPS’ s more conservative assumption of 0.05 lb/MMBtu or 78% reduction, the benefits still substantially exceed the control effectiveness of DEQ’s proposed SNCR option. NPS’s analysis demonstrates that the costs of SCR, if operated for more than fi ve years, fall below both DEQ’s $7,300/ton cost effectiveness and $10 million/ deciview thresholds. The installation of SCR would improve the total visibility benefit by 2.6 deci views. Accordingly, we believe that LNB, OFA and SCR is the appropriate NO

x BART determination for Option 1.

With respect to Option 2, that requires closure by 2018, Dr y Sorbent Injection systems are capable of achieving 90% SO 2 reduction efficiency. A 35% SO 2 reduction is far too lenient a limit and DEQ should require this technology perform to its actual capability.

With respect to Option 3, that requires closure within five years, NPCA believes that DEQ should require additional interim controls that would reduce emissions in the five remaining years of operation. The five-year closure option would reduce the remaining useful life of the facility, therefore narrowing the contro l options, but cost-effective technologies are available which would provide for additional emission reduction
benefits.

Dry Sorbent Injection for Option 3 may well be an appropriate cost effective technology choice capable of reducing SO 2 emissions in a manner consistent with BART requirements. We request that DEQ determin e whether Dry Sorbent Injection would be
cost effective when amortized over the remaining life of the plant.

With respect to NO

x emissions for Option 3, we support Na tional Park Service’s assertion
that Low NO

x Burners, Over-fire Air and Select ive Non-Catalytic Reduction is below DEQ’s $7300/ton cost effectiveness threshold and should be considered as an interim
control.

Finally, we suggest for Opti on 3 that proposed OAR 340-2 23-0060(1) be modified to include a hard date by which compliance is assured, as set forth in bold below:7 Subject to OAR 340-223-0050, the owner or operator of any coal
fired boiler at the Boardman coal-fired power plant may elect to comply with this rule in li eu of compliance with OAR 340-223- 0030 and 340-223-0040 if it ceases operat ions of the boiler within five years of the approval by the United States Environmental Protection Agency of the revision to the State of Oregon Clean Air Act Implementation Plan that incorporates OAR Chapter 340, division 223, but in no event later than May 16, 2016

.

Thank you again for the opportunity to comment.

Sincerely,

Stephanie Kodish
Clean Air Counsel
National Parks Conservation Association 706 Walnut Street, Suite 200 Knoxville, TN 37902
865-329-2424 skodish@npca.org1 January 30, 2009

BY EMAIL TRANSMISSION

Brian Finneran Oregon DEQ Air Quality Division
811 SW Sixth Avenue Portland, Oregon 97204 Fax: (503) 229-5675 Email: regionalhaze@deq.state.or.us

Dear Mr. Finneran:

Environmental Defense Fund and National Park s Conservation Association respectfully submit the following comments on the Oregon De partment of Environmental Quality’s (DEQ) proposed Regional Haze rulemaking addr essing best available retrofit technology (BART) and reasonable progress requirements for the Boardman coal-fired power plant (Boardman) located in Boardman, Oregon, and operated by Portland General Electric Company (PGE). We also appreciate the opportunity to provide brief comments regarding the rule amendmen t proposed by PGE. PGE’s comments present important questions that merit rigorous c onsideration. They also raise material questions that were not presented in the State’s proposal. We respectfully ask the State to provide an opportunity for comment by the public and th e Federal Land Managers on the State’s own assessment and evaluation of PGE’s approa ch in light of a full consideration of the
relevant BART factors.

The Boardman plant is solely responsible for 38% of all industrial emissions and 2.7% of
the entire emissions in Oregon. Boardman’s em issions adversely impact 15 Class I airsheds within the states of Oregon, Wash ington, and Idaho. These areas include: Mt. Hood Wilderness, Mt. Jefferson Wilderness, Th ree Sisters Wilderne ss, Mt. Washington Wilderness, Eagle Cap Wilderness, Hells Canyo n Wilderness (OR), Strawberry Mountain Wilderness, Diamond Peak Wilderness, Mt. Ad ams Wilderness, Goat Rocks Wilderness, Alpine Lake Wilderness, Mt. Rainier Nati onal Park, Glacier Peak Wilderness, North Cascades National Park, and Hells Canyon (ID).

BART and reasonable progress requirements were enacted to assure reasonable progress to the Clean Air Act’s national goal of preventing future and remedying existing impairment of visibility in Class I areas from air pollution. Mount Rainier and North
Cascades National Parks are but two national treasures that have been compromised from haze-causing pollutants. For several weeks each year Boardman reduces visibility in
Mount Rainier. There are clear days when Mount Rainier itself is hard to distinguish and the once guaranteed views of Mt. St. Helens, Mt. Adams, Mt. Hood, and the Olympic
Mountains from Mount Rainier are more diffi cult to see. Likewise, vistas from North Cascades National Park, including Desolation Pe ak, the inspiration of great literary works2 such as Jack Kerouac’s Desolation Angels, are threatened. These areas are the crown jewels of the Pacific Northwest and the nati on, drawing millions of visitors annually. To protect public health and our c ountry’s invaluable natural trea sures for present and future generations we encourage DEQ to ensure appropriate and timely clean up of hazecausing pollution. The statutory requirem ents and human health and environmental protections can be carried out through bi nding provisions that require alternatively
enforceable BART emission limitations or enfo rceable closure of the facility. These alternatives need to be enforceable, timely and consonant with the statutory protections
under the law.

We greatly appreciate the State’s leader ship and would sincerely welcome the opportunity to discuss these co mments with the State, FLMs, PGE, and other interested members of the public.

I. Specific Comments Regarding the BART Determination for Boardman

DEQ’s Proposed NOx Emission Limi ts Fail to Reflect BART for NOx

DEQ has proposed as BART for nitrogen oxi de (NOx) emission limit of 0.28 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling average) and 0.23 lb/MMBtu ( 12 month rolling average) based on the use
of new low NOx burners and modified overfir e air or, if necessar y, with the use of selective noncatalytic reduc tion (SNCR) and a correspond ing NOx BART emission limit of 0.23 lb/MMBtu on a 30-day rolling averag e. The proposed NOx BART emission limit and pollution controls fa il to reflect the best demonstrat ed system of continuous emission
reduction that can be achieved at Boardman.

A. Lower NOx Emission Rates Can Be Ac hieved with Ultra Low NOx Burners and
Overfire Air

.

DEQ’s proposed BART limits fail to comply with the EPA’s presumptive BART limits
for wall-fired boilers of 0.23 lb/MMBtu on a 30- day rolling average. As shown further below, the presumptive BART limit on a 30-da y average should be readily achievable
with new state-of-the-art low NOx burners a nd overfire air. Indeed, even lower NOx
emission rates are achievable w ith these basic NOx controls.

For example, the W.A. Parish Unit 6 facili ty was retrofitted with DRB-4ZTM ultra low
NOx burners with interlaced overfire air in 2000, and has achieved post-retrofit NOx
emissions of 0.17 lb/MMBtu or lower. 1 This unit is very similar to the Boardman facility, being an opposed wall-fired 670 MW unit placed into se rvice in 1978 which
burns Powder River Basin coal. 2 The W.A. Parish facility was emitting NOx at a rate of
0.40 lb/MMBtu before the retrofit. 3 A review of the Clean Air Markets Database NOx

1 See Bryk, S.A. et al., First Commercial Applica tion of DRB-4ZTM Ultra Low NOx Coal-Fired Burner, presented to POWER-GEN International 2000, Nove mber 14-16, 2000, Orlando, FL. Included as
Attachment 1 to this comment letter.

2 Id.

3 Id.3 emissions data for Boardman from 2003- 2005 shows Boardman has been achieving
similar NOx rate as W.A. Parish Unit 6 was before the retrofit – Boardman has been achieving an annual average NOx emission ra te of 0.41 lb/MMBtu. However, DEQ’s consultant, ERG, did not addres s the low NOx burner retrofit at the W.A. Parish Unit 6 facility in its BART Report to DEQ, even t hough the W.A. Parish un it is very comparable to the Boardman facility.

Many other existing coal-fired units are achieving lower NOx emission rates with
overfire air and low NOx burners . Attached is a spreadshee t with NOx emissions data from 2004-2006 that provides numerous examples of wall-fired boilers with low NOx burners and overfire air meeting lower NOx emission rates than 0.23-0.28 lb/MMBtu.

The emissions data presented by DEQ in its BART Report also provides support that
lower NOx emission rates can be met with ne w low NOx burners and overfire air. For example, the H.W. Pirkey facility, which is a wall-fired, dry bottom boiler of similar generating capacity as Boardman is achie ving a NOx emission rate of 0.18 lb/MMBtu. DEQ Report at 15, Table 12. DEQ discounted this low NOx emission rate by averaging
all of the NOx emission rates from the seve n EGUs selected for review, rather than evaluating whether Boardman could meet the lo west emission rate that has been achieved in practice. Further, DEQ’s list of EGUs of similar design to Boardman that have low
NOx burners fails to indicate when the low NOx burners were installed (to know whether they reflect current state-of-the-art) and wh at the required NOx emission limit it. If the units are not subject to strict NOx emission limits such as what might be required under a
best available control technol ogy (BACT) determination, then the pollution controls may not be designed or operated to the maxi mum pollution reduction capacity. Thus, in evaluating achievable NOx emission rates with a retrofit of new low NOx burners and overfire air, DEQ should have reviewed r ecent BACT analyses and collected vendor
information as well as recent retrofits.

Given that BART is to reflect the best sy stem of continuous emission reduction and given the long averaging time of the DEQ proposed BA RT limits, DEQ has failed to provide a reasoned justification for deve loping a BART emission limit based solely on the average
of NOx emission rates from 7 EGUs that have low NOx burners. DEQ must evaluate the
best level of NOx emission reduction achieva ble at Boardman as part of the BART analysis, and vendor and emissions data clear ly show that lower NOx emission rates are achievable at a facility like Boardman – speci fically, emission rates of 0.18 lb/MMBtu or
lower should be achievable with new u ltra low NOx burners and overfire air.

Thus, while DEQ has indicated it was not sure whether Boardman can meet the proposed 0.23 lb/MMBtu NOx emission limits with just low NOx burners and modified overfire air, it seems quite possible that Boardman c ould readily meet that limit and even achieve
lower NOx emissions with ultra low NOx burners and modified overfire air. If PGE and DEQ have incorrectly relied on higher emission rates of NOx than what can actually be achieved by the proposed low NOx burners and modified overfire air, not only does that mean the proposed NOx BART level is too hi gh but it also would make the emission and
cost estimates for SNCR and SCR invalid.4 B. Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction Can Achieve a Greater Degree of NOx Control than Assumed in the Boardman NOx BART Analysis.

DEQ’s proposed BART limit based on SNCR is 0.23 lb/MMBtu (30 day average). This
reflects a 17% reduction from th e worst case expected NOx rate of 0.28 lb/MMBtu with new low NOx burners and overfire air. But available, cost-effective measures can achieve more meaningful pollution reductions. As stated above, based on available emissions and vendor data, Boardman can likely achieve NOx emission rates much lower
than 0.23 lb/MMBtu with new state-of-the-art low NOx burners and overfire air. As noted in the ERG memo, SNCR technology can achieve much higher degrees of NOx control, as high as 50-60%. 4 Further, according to ER G’s memo, a vendor of SNCR systems has indicated a 25% reduction of NOx emissions is achievable with SNCR at Boardman. ERG Memo at 7. Yet, DEQ failed to evaluate any of thes e levels of control with an SNCR system.

Since Boardman should be able to readily meet the presumptive BART limit of 0.23
lb/MMBtu with new ultra low NOx burners and overfire air, DEQ should have, at the minimum, evaluated the level of control a vendor apparently claimed was achievable at Boardman with SNCR – i.e., 25%. That would equate to a BART limit of 0.17 lb/MMBtu or lower. As discussed above, Boardman should be able to meet a much
lower NOx level with ultra low NOx burners and overfire air, in the range of 0.17-0.18
lb/MMBtu. A 25% reduction from this leve l of NOx emissions, which equates to an
emission limit of 0.13 – 0.14 lb/M MBtu, should also have been evaluated as BART with SNCR. DEQ’s BART analysis is seriously de ficient in failing to fully evaluate SNCR, especially given that a vendor provided data on what SNCR could achieve at Boardman that reflected a much higher degree of emission reduction than assumed by DEQ.

C. Indeed, BART for Boardman Shoul d Be Based on NOx Emission Limits Achievable with Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR).

DEQ has proposed to require installation of a selective catalytic re duction (SCR) system not to meet BART requirements, but instead to meet reasonable progress requirements. Accordingly, DEQ is allowing PG&E to delay installing an SCR system until 2017, well after the BART compliance deadline.

Based on the information provided in DEQ’ s BART Report, ERG’s memo, and other readily available information, there is more than sufficient basis for DEQ to require installation of SCR along with new low NOx burners and overfire air as necessary to meet BART requirements.

As DEQ has indicated, the Boardman power pl ant is the largest i ndustrial source of NOx in the state. In 2002, Boardman accounted for a full one-third of Oregon’s total NOx

4 Cite to ERG Memo and EPA NOx control doc that says 40-60% is achievable with SNCR.5 emissions from industrial sources in the state. 5 In fact, the Boardman power plant is the second largest source of NOx in the Pacific No rthwest (including the st ates of California, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho). 6 The Boardman power plant is also the only facility that DEQ determined to be BART-eligible and subject to BART. 2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan at 144. Requiring installati on and implementation of NOx control technologies that are readily available a nd can secure extensive reductions in NOx
emissions from Boardman on a level that will not only greatly reduce visibility impairment due to NOx pollution, but will al so reduce nitrogen and acid deposition as well as fine particulate and ozone formation.

1. The Costs of Installing SCR Were Overestimated.

DEQ presented cost estimates provided by PG&E for its proposed BART controls and for the addition of SCR in Table 15 of the DEQ BART Report (at 19). Specifically, the costs in terms of tons of pollutant removed were as follows:

Technology NOx
Emission Rate,
lb/MMBtu NOx
Emission Reduction, tons per year Cost Effectiveness, $/ton/year Incremental
Cost Effectiveness, $/ton/year LNB/MOFA 0.23 4,756 $782 LNB/MOFA/SNCR 0.23 4,756 $1,496 SCR 0.07 8,647 $2,666 $4,097 LNB/MOFA/SCR 0.07 8,647 $3,096 $5,052 (Table excerpted from Tabl e 15 of DEQ BART Report).

ERG, DEQ’s consultants that gave an inde pendent review of PG&E’s BART proposal,
found that PG&E’s cost estimates for SCR were overestimated, by a minimum of 24% and “possibly by as much as a factor of two.” June 26, 2008 ERG Technical Memo #2 at 3, 11, 17. Yet, DEQ relied on PG&E’s cost esti mates rather than ERG’s cost analysis. DEQ indicated it relied on PG&E’s SCR cost estimates because information from PG&E on the boiler modifications that may be needed to effective utilize an SCR system. DEQ BART Report at 19. Specifical ly, PG&E has indicated that the flue gas temperature is too high for an SCR, and that a larger lower economizer would need to be installed in the
Boardman boiler. Id. However, ERG in fact accounted fo r that in its costs estimates that
were much lower than PG&E’s. ERG Technical Memo #2 at 16.

Second, it appears that no party has fully ev aluated the necessity of lowering flue gas temperature for operation of the SCR or whethe r there might be other options such as the use of a higher temperature SCR catalyst or in stallation of the SCR in a tail-end or low dust configuration. According to PG&E’s documentation provided to DEQ, the

5 Based on 2002 emissions data for Oregon available on EPA’s AIRData website at http://www.epa.gov/air/data/reports.html.

6 Based on 2002 emissions data for California, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho available on EPA’s AIRData website at http://www.epa.gov/air/data/reports.html.6 Boardman flue gas temperature is typically less than 840 degrees Fahrenheit the majority of the time, with higher temperatures occurr ing about 3% of the time in a year. See PG&E’s March 19, 2008 Responses at Q29-2. The maximum flue gas temperature was 879 degrees Fahrenheit. Id. While PG&E indicated that the top temperature for effective SCR performance is 750 degrees Fahrenheit , PG&E did not obtain any SCR catalyst temperature curves from vendors to see if othe r types of catalysts c ould be used rather than undergoing extensive boiler modifications to lower the gas stream temperature to 750 degrees F. PG&E’s March 19, 2008 Res ponses at Q26-Q28-2, Q29-1. The optimal temperature range is based on the catalyst, a nd there have been catalysts developed for high temperature operation. Some literatur e has indicated the optimal gas stream temperature for application of SCR in a coal-fired boiler appl ication goes up to 840 degrees F. 7 Yet, PG&E did not evaluate the diffe rent types of catalysts available. Further, PG&E failed to evaluate whether othe r configurations of an SCR could be used that would not require replacement of the lo wer economizer. For example, PG&E did not evaluate locating the SCR in a tail-end or lo w dust configuration. Such an installation could readily address this concern regard ing the gas stream temperature at the economizer and possibly could be more cost effective with fewer layers of catalysts needed, less expensive catalyst s used, and smaller reactor vessels than in a high dust
installation. 8

DEQ’s costs estimates are also improperly inflated because they are based on the SCR achieving a NOx emission rate of 0.07 lb/MMBtu when current state-of-the-art SCRs can
achieve much lower levels of NOx emissions. The 0.07 lb/MMBtu emission rate
assumed for installation of an SCR with new low NOx burners and overfire air only
reflects a 70% reduction in NOx due to th e SCR, assuming the low NOx burners and overfire air only achieve a NOx emission rate of 0.23 lb/MMBtu as assumed by DEQ. However, SCR systems can achieve much high levels of NOx removal, as high as 90+% NOx removal. Further, as discussed above, it is likely that the Boardman boiler would be
able to achieve a lower NOx rate with new low NOx burners and overfire air.

A review of recent SCR retrofits most defini tively shows that very high levels of NOx removal are being achieved by recent SCR retrof it installations. NOx emission rates less
than 0.05 lb/MMBtu are routinely achieved, and NOx remo val efficiencies are typically
around 90%. 9 Permitting agencies have required lower NOx limits in recent BACT determinations, with many proposed and re quired BACT limits of 0.05-0.06 lb/MMBtu
and at least one NOx BACT limit as low as 0.035 lb/MMBtu. 10

7 See, e.g., Tonn, D.P. et al., 2200 MW SCR Installa tion on New Coal-Fired Proj ect, Presented to Institute of Clean Air Companies, ICAC Forum ’98, March 18-20, 1998. Included as an A ttachment to this letter.

8 See January 2009 FGD and DeNox Newsletter, No. 369, Next Generation SCR Choices – High Dust, Low Dust, and Tail-End. Included as an Attachment to this letter.

9 See Erickson, Clayton A. et al., Selective Cata lytic Reduction System Performance and Reliability Review, The 2006 MEGA Symposium, Paper # 121. Included as an Attachment to this letter.

10 The Desert Rock Energy Facility permit requires th e facility to achieve, after a NOx optimization period, a NOx emission rate of 0.035 lb/MMBtu on a 365 day rolling average and an emission rate of 0.05 lb/MMBtu on a 30-day rolling average. A copy of the Desert Rock PSD permit is included as an Attachment to this letter. See also the National Park Service spreadsheet on BACT limits for New PC Power Plants, which is also attached.7 Thus, NOx emission limits lower than DE Q’s assumed 0.07 lb/MMBtu emission rate could likely be met with SCR and new low NOx burners/overfire ai r at Boardman. DEQ
should re-evaluate the cost e ffectiveness of SCR, low NOx burners, and overfire air
based on an emission limit that reflects the best system of continuous emission reduction
at Boardman.

2. The Costs of Installing SCR Are Reasonable.

Without making any modifications to the cost effectiveness calculati ons (which we think are warranted, as discussed above), the cost effectiveness of low NOx burners, overfire air and SCR of $3,096/ton/year is actually on par with the cost effectiveness of DEQ’s proposal to require a semidr y FGD as BART for SO2 with a cost effectiveness of $3,055/ton/year (per Table 15 of DEQ BART Report). Given the suite of impacts associated with NOx pollution from Boardman on numerous class I areas impacted by the Boardman facility, it is illogical for DEQ to find that essentia lly the same cost per ton of SO2 removed is reasonable, but find a simila r cost for SCR to be unreasonable for NOx BART. Further, because DEQ’s SCR cost esti mates are improperly inflated as discussed above, it could be that the cost effectiveness of SCR controls is ac tually lower than the cost effectiveness of installing a semi-d ry scrubber for SO2 c ontrol at Boardman.

3. The Costs of SCR Combined with a Low NOx Combustion System Were Not
Considered Unreasonable in a Recent Se ttlement Between EPA and Salt River Project for the Coronado Power Plant in Arizona.

EPA recently entered into a settlement with the Salt River Project regarding air emission
reductions at SRP’s Coronado Power Plant in Arizona. See United States of America v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District, Civil Action No. CV 08-1479-PHX-JAT Consent Decree (Attached). EPA had previously filed a complaint alleging that the Coronado plant had been modi fied without obtaining prior prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) permits. Co ronado Consent Decree at 4. The Coronado power plant is a 2 unit faci lity, each unit has a genera ting capacity of roughly 450 megawatts, and the boilers for each unit are wa ll-fired and burn bituminous coal. The Coronado Consent Decree requires installati on of SCR along with a low NOx combustion system at each unit and a NOx emission limit for each unit of 0.08 lb/MMBtu (30 day average) be met. Id. at 14. The Consent Decree resolv es all civil claims brought by the EPA, thus one can presume that the costs of installation of SCR and combustion controls were determined by EPA to be reasonable even as a retrofit to an existing facility. Thus, the Coronado Consent Decree provides strong ev idence that the costs of retrofitting SCR to a western coal-fired power plant are re asonable and DEQ must take this Consent Decree into consideration in determining whether the costs of SCR installation at
Boardman are reasonable.

4. SCR and Low NOx Emission Rates Shoul d Not Be Discounted as Simply a NOx SIP Call Control Strategy that is Ina pplicable to Western Coal Plants8 DEQ states in its BART Report that electric utility boilers in the Western U.S. could not
achieve 70-90% NOx reductions and NOx emission rates of 0.05 lb/MMBtu that numerous electric utility boile rs have achieved with SCR re trofits in the eastern and midwestern U.S. See DEQ BART Report at 17. DEQ seems to imply in its BART Report that SCR retrofits and low levels of NOx emissions are only reasonable in areas subject to the NOx SIP call and the Clean Air Interstate Rule. DEQ seems to rely on the assumption that, because many of the SCR retr ofits are only operated during the ozone season, the low levels of NOx emissions woul d not be achievable on a year round basis. This is misplaced and DEQ should not assume that, simply because there have not been many SCR retrofits in the West, existing coal-f ired utility boilers can’t meet those same
levels of control for reasonable costs.

The Coronado Consent Decree, in requiring SCR retrofits on two existing units, provides a compelling example of this fact. It is al so important to note that every new proposed coal-fired power plant that will be utilizi ng a pulverized coal-fired boiler has proposed or been required to install SCR to meet BACT requirements. As the attached National Park Service spreadsheet on NOx BACT controls for new pulverized coal units, there are numerous recent proposed PSD permits for we stern facilities with NOx limits of 0.05 lb/MMBtu or lower, such as the Desert Rock limit of 0.039 lb/MMBtu which we
discussed above.

Further, western states and EPA are requiri ng evaluation of SCR as BART at existing coal-fired power plants. We believe that limits based on SCR are appropriate at other coal plants in the West, besides Boardman. We plan to respectfully request EPA to require SCR for BART for the Navajo Genera ting Station and the Four Corners Power Plant, both located in the Four Corners regi on of the Southwest. We believe Boardman should adopt SCR as BART along with other plants in the West.

5. The Significant Improvements in Visibili ty Due to SCR Installation at Boardman Must Be Given Strong Consideration in Selecting BART for Boardman

SCR should be considered as BART for Boar dman due to the significant impact that NOx emissions have on visibility impairment in the region. Nitrates are a source of visibility impairment in the Class I areas of Or egon and western Idaho. 2008 Oregon Regional
Haze Plan at 65. This is es pecially true for the Class I areas of Eastern Oregon and Western Idaho. Specifically, on the 20% wors t visibility days, nitrate is a major component of visibility impairment in th e Hells Canyon, Strawberry Mountain, and Eagle Cap wilderness areas. 2008 Oregon Regional Ha ze Plan at 66. DEQ attributes much of the nitrate component to the Boardman power plant. Id. at 66, 75. At the Hells Canyon Wilderness Area, nitrates are an even greater portion of the visibili ty impairing pollution than the eastern Oregon Class I areas, and Bo ardman is considered by DEQ to be “the largest contributor.” Id. at 77. This data greatly unders cores the need to aggressively
control NOx at Boardman to address its cont ribution to visibility impairment, especially in the eastern Oregon and we stern Idaho Class I areas.9 DEQ’s modeling shows that the “Phase 2” cont rols of adding an SCR to Boardman and reducing NOx levels down to 0.07 lb/MMBtu will greatly reduce Boardman’s visibility impacts in all Class I areas affected by Bo ardman. For example, the visibility impacts (98 th percentile) due to Boardman at Mt. Hood wilderness area will change from 2.5 deciviews (dv) with the inst allation of DEQ’s proposed BART controls down to 1.0 dv with the installation of SCR. DEQ BART Re port at iii. Thus, the addition of SCR at Boardman results in an additional 60% impr ovement in visibility impairment at Mt. Hood. The total visibility impacts due to Boar dman at all Class I areas (i.e., the sum of
the 98 th percentile dv impact for all Class I ar eas) is estimated to change from 13.8 dv with the implementation of DEQ’s proposed BART controls at Boardman down to 5.5 dv
with the installation of SCR – a 60% improvement. Id. The Boardman facility is currently estimated to cause a greater than 1.0 dv impact in 14 Class I areas. With the addition of DEQ’s proposed BART controls, th e number of Class I areas with a 1.0 dv impact or greater caused by Boardman would drop to 6. However, with the addition of SCR, Boardman would not cause greater than a 1.0 dv impact in any of the Class I areas currently being impacted by 1.0 dv or more by the facility. Appendix D to 2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan at D-49. The Class I areas at which Boardman would cause a just noticeable change of 0.5 dv would decrease from 34 Class I areas with DEQ’s proposed BART controls all the way down to 7 Class I areas once SCR is installed. Id. at D-49. The DEQ 2008 Regional Haze Plan and Appendi x D are replete with modeling analyses showing the very significant benefit that in stallation of SCR will have on the region’s
Class I areas.

Not only will the installation of SCR greatly improve visibility at the Class I areas in the region, it will also significantly improvement visibility in the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area. DEQ’s modeling shows th at with installation of BART controls at Boardman, the number of days per year with at least a 1.0 dv impact by Boardman at the Columbia River Gorge will change from 53 to 34 and, with the installation of SCR at Boardman, the number of days per year with at least a 1.0 dv impact by Boardman will drop down to 3. DEQ BART Report at iii.

Thus, DEQ’s modeling greatly supports SCR with new low NOx burners and overfire air as reflective of BART for Boardman, given the significant degree of improvement in visibility that will result in the numerous Class I areas currently being impacted by
Boardman.

6. Installation of SCR at Boardman as BART Will Significantly Address Other Air Quality Related Impacts in the Region.

Other air quality related impacts in the regi on will also significantly improve as a result
of installation of SCR at Boardman as we ll. NOx emissions can contribute to excess nitrogen in ecosystems, which can alter the ch emical balance of the soils and waterbodies with serious consequences for plant and anim al life. DEQ’s modeling demonstrates that nitrogen deposition in Class I areas will be sign ificantly reduced as a result of installation of SCR at Boardman. See Appendix D to 2008 DEQ Regional Haze Plan, at D-53. In fact, it appears that maximum nitrogen deposi tion in Class I areas wi ll only decrease from10 currently levels by roughly 25% with DEQ’s proposed BART limits but, with the installation of SCR at Boardman, nitrogen de position would decrease from current levels by roughly 85%. Id. Currently, Boardman’s modeled contribution to nitrogen deposition in Class I areas significantly exceeds the National Park Service’s Deposition Analysis Threshold of 0.005 kilogram per hectare per y ear (kg/ha yr). In fact, Boardman’s maximum nitrogen deposition is estimated to be approximately 0.052 kg/ha/yr, which is
ten times the National Park Service’ s deposition analysis threshold. Id. With the installation of SCR, Boardman’s contribution to nitrogen de position in affected Class I areas and in the Columnbia River Gorge wi ll drop to levels ve ry close to the 0.005 kg/ha/yr deposition an alysis threshold.

With lower NOx emissions from Boardman, th at would also decrea se nitrate deposition, which is be a major source of acidification of lakes and streams. According to National Park Service data, nitrate in precipation ha s been on the rise in the Pacific Northwest parks over the past ten years. 11 Thus, reducing NOx from the Boardman facility with
state of the art controls could help to reverse this trend.

For all of the above reasons , DEQ must require installa tion of SCR and new low NOx
burners with overfire air as BART for th e Boardman facility and set a NOx BART emission limit reflective of the capabilities of this technology which would be absolutely no higher than the 0.07 lb/MMBtu NOx emission limit assumed by DEQ as achievable with this NOx pollution control system.

DEQ’s Proposed SO2 Emission Limi ts Fail to Reflect BART for SO2

DEQ has proposed an SO2 BART limit for Boardman of 0.12 lb/MMBtu (30 day rolling average) based on use of a semi-dry flue gas desulfurization (FGD) system. DEQ BART Report at ii. However, the proposed SO2 emi ssion limit fails to reflect the emissions rate that the best system of continuous emi ssion reduction can achieve at the Boardman facility.

A. A Wet Scrubber Can Achieve Much Higher Levels of SO2 Control and Much
Lower SO2 Limits than Assume d in DEQ’s BART Analysis.

DEQ assumed an SO2 emission rate of 0.09 lb /MMBtu with a wet scrubber installed at Boardman. DEQ BART Report at 13. This ap pears to be based on DEQ’s evaluation of
actual emission rates at other western coal-fired power plan ts. DEQ BART Report at 15. However, the achievable SO2 emission rate with a wet (or a dry) sc rubber is based on the
coal sulfur content and unc ontrolled SO2 emission rate of the boiler and also on the design of the scrubber. So, DEQ’s evaluati on of the SO2 emission rates achieved at existing units in the West is can’t serve as a sufficient basis to defi ne an achievable SO2
limit with a wet scrubber at Boardman without an evaluation of the coal sulfur content
and uncontrolled SO2 emission rate of those units. Further, if the units evaluated are not subject to a requirement to operate the wet scrubber to the best level of continuous

11 See National Park Service 1993-2002 Trends Maps, included as an Attachment to this letter.11 emission reduction, then the scrubbers at thos e units may not be designed or operated to meet what is actually achievable with a wet scrubber at Boardman.

A new wet scrubber retrofit at Boardman shoul d be able to meet the same levels of control as new wet scrubbers that are proposed for new coal-fired power plants. Thus, DEQ should have conducted a review of recen t proposed and final BACT determinations as part of assessing the emission rate that could be achieved with a wet scrubber at
Boardman. A new wet scrubber should be ab le to achieve at least 95% SO2 removal
even on low sulfur Powder River Basin coal. There have been se veral proposed coalfired power plants burning low sulfur Powder River Basin coal that have proposed to use wet scrubbers to meet PSD requirements, in cluding the proposed Ely Energy Center and the proposed Toquop power plant in Nevada and the proposed Big Stone II facility in South Dakota. The state of Nevada proposed a SO2 limit for both the Ely Energy Center and the Toquop power plant of 0.06 lb/MMBtu on a 24-hr basis. 12 The proponents of the Big Stone II facility claim the wet scrubber wi ll be designed to meet at least 95% control
with Powder River Basin coal. 13

The current uncontrolled SO2 emission rate exiting the boiler at Boardman is 0.61 according to DEQ. DEQ BART Report at 25. PG&E has indicated that the uncontrolled SO2 emission rate at Boardman might go as high as 1.2 to 2.49 lb/MMBtu. PG&E’s March 24, 2008 Response to Comments at Q2-Q5_Q7_-8-11. This is significantly higher than the current baseline uncontrol led SO2 emission rate of 0.61 lb/MMBtu and such an increase in sulfur content of coal could greatly override the visibility improvements that will be observed with DEQ’ s proposed BART controls for Boardman. Further, lower sulfur coal is still readily available from the Powder River Basin. DEQ should not determine potential BART emission rates based on worst case coal assumptions that have never occurred at Boar dman in the past. The purpose of BART is
to reduce emissions from current levels to im prove visibility, and th at purpose will be ignored if DEQ sets BART limits based on wh at coal Boardman mi ght utilize in the future. Instead, DEQ should set a BART lim it based on the coal Boardman is currently and has been utilizing for quite some time a nd based on the SO2 removal efficiencies of the control systems being evaluated.

The proposed BACT emission limits for the Toquop and Ely power plants provide very relevant data for DEQ to propose a BART lim it reflective of wet scrubbers. When a PSD permit applicant proposes an emission limit as BACT, such a proposal is made only after careful evaluation of the capab ilities of the pollution contro l system with vendors because the permit applicants have to be able to ensure they can comply with a BACT limit that they propose to a permitting agency, as it will ultimately become an enforceable requirement. An SO2 emission limit of 0.06 lb/MMBtu based on these two proposed BACT limits would be readily achievable with a wet scrubbe r at the Boardman facility.
A 0.06 lb/MMBtu emission limit refl ects only 90% removal of SO 2 from the coal that is

12 A copy of the proposed PSD permits for the Ely Energy Center and Toquop power plant are attached.

13 Testimony of Mark Rolfes, Otter Tail Power Comp any’s project manager for Big Stone II, at the Contested Case Hearing for the Big Stone II PSD an d Big Stone Title V permit s, Pierre, So uth Dakota, August 20, 2008.12 currenty being utilized at Boardman, and 90% removal is readily achievable at a wet
scrubber even with low sulfur coal.

Further, such an emission rate is being achieve d in practice at coal-fir ed power plants that are burning lower sulfur coal and are equipped with wet scrubbers. Based on data presented in DEQ’s BART Report, several un its are achieving SO2 emission rates of 0.06 lb/MMBtu including Craig Units 1 and 2, Bona nza, Intermountain Power Units 1 and 2, and Centralia Units 1 and 2. Table 12 of DEQ BART Report (at pp. 15-16).

Thus, DEQ should have evaluated the cost effectiveness of a wet scrubber based on a
0.06 lb/MMBtu SO2 emission rate or lower. Su ch an analysis would greatly decrease the costs per ton of a wet scrubber such that DEQ might have found the costs to be reasonable. Further, DEQ s hould evaluate the visibility and SO2 related improvements
as a result of an SO2 emission limit of 0.06 lb/MMBtu with a wet scrubber as compared to DEQ’s presumed 0.09 lb/MMBtu SO2 emission rate with a wet scrubber.

B. A SemiDry Scrubber Can Achieve Mu ch Higher Levels of SO2 Control and
Much Lower SO2 Emission Rates than Assumed in DEQ’s BART Analysis.

DEQ assumed an SO2 emission rate of 0.12 lb /MMBtu with a semidry scrubber installed at Boardman. DEQ BART Report at 13. This appears to be based on DEQ’s evaluation
of actual emission rates at ot her western coal-fired power plants. DEQ BART Report at 15. However, the achievable SO2 emission rate with a dry scrubber is based on the coal
sulfur content and uncontrolled SO2 emission ra te of the boiler and al so on the design of the scrubber. So, DEQ’s eval uation of the SO2 emission rate s achieved at existing units
in the West is can’t serve as a sufficient ba sis to define an achievable SO2 limit with a dry scrubber at Boardman without an eval uation of the coal sulfur content and
uncontrolled SO2 emission rate of those units. Further, if the units evaluated are not subject to a requirement to operate the dry scrubber to the best level of continuous emission reduction, then the scrubbers at thos e units may not be designed or operated to meet what is actually achievable with a dry scrubber at Boardman.

A new dry scrubber retrofit at Boardman shoul d be able to meet the same levels of control as new dry scrubbers that are proposed for new coal-fired power plants. Thus, DEQ should have conducted a review of recen t proposed and final BACT determinations as part of assessing the emission rate that could be achieved with a wet scrubber at Boardman. A new dry scrubber should be ab le to achieve, at the minimum, 90% SO2
removal even on low sulfur Powder River Basin coal. 14 There have been several proposed coal-fired power plan ts burning low sulfur Powder River Basin coal that have proposed to use dry scrubbers to meet PSD requirements and that are subject to much
lower SO2 BACT limits than 0.12 lb/MMBt u, including the Newmont Nevada TS power plant, the proposed White Pine power plant, and the proposed Dry Fork power plant. The Newmont Nevada power plant has a much lower SO 2 emission limit required as BACT of

14 See, e.g., EPA’s proposed revisions to the New Source Performance Standards for Boilers in which EPA stated new dry scrubbers can generally achieve greater than 90% SO2 removal. 70 Fed.Reg. 9711 (February 28, 2005).13 0.065 lb/MMBtu on a 24-hour averaging time, along with a SO 2 removal efficiency requirement of 91 percent, when combusti ng coal with less than 0.45 percent sulfur. 15
This facility is currently be ing constructed. The State of Nevada has proposed a PSD permit for the White Pine power plant with an SO2 emission limit of 0.065 lb/MMBtu (24-hour average) and a minimum 91% SO2 re moval requirement when combusting coal
with sulfur content less th an 0.45%, and a 0.090 lb/MMBtu ( 24-hour average) SO2 limit and a minimum 95% SO2 removal requirement when combusting coal with sulfur content equal to or gr eater than 0.45% sulfur. 16 The proposed Dry Fork power plant in Wyoming is subject to an SO2 BACT lim it of 0.07 lb/MMBtu on a 12 month rolling average basis.

Thus, DEQ should have assumed a dry scrubber could achieve an emission rate reflective
of 90-95% SO2 removal. That would equate to an emission ra te based on current coal of no higher than 0.060 lb/MMBtu. Su ch a limit on a long averaging time such as 30 day or 365 day rolling would be similar to the 0.065 lb/MMBtu So2 emission rates that have been required as BACT for si milar facilities using dry scr ubbers as discussed above.

While PG&E has indicated that it may burn mu ch higher sulfur coal in the future, DEQ should not determine potential BART emission rates based on worst case coal assumptions that have never occurred at Boar dman in the past. The purpose of BART is
to reduce emissions from current levels to im prove visibility, and th at purpose will be ignored if DEQ sets BART limits based on wh at coal Boardman mi ght utilize in the future. Instead, DEQ should set a BART lim it based on the coal Boardman is currently and has been utilizing for quite some time a nd based on the SO2 removal efficiencies of the control systems being evaluated.

DEQ’s Proposed PM10 Emission Limi ts Fail to Reflect BART for PM10

DEQ has proposed PM10 BART limit for Boardman of 0.012 lb/MMBtu (3 hour average) based on use of a fabric filter baghous e. DEQ BART Report at ii. However, the proposed PM10 emission limit fails to reflect the emissions rate that the best system of
continuous emission reduction can achi eve at the Boardman facility.

A new fabric filter retrofit at Boardman should be able to meet the same levels of control as new fabric filters that are proposed fo r new coal-fired power plants. Thus, DEQ should have conducted a review of recent pr oposed and final BACT determinations as part of assessing the emission rate that could be achieved with a fabric filter at Boardman. There have been several PM10 BACT limits based on fabric filter baghouses that are lower than 0.012 lb/MMBtu including the De sert Rock permit, the proposed Ely Energy Center and Toquop permits, and the Two Elk perm it. All of these permits set filterable
PM10 BACT limits at 0.010 lb/MMBtu.

15 See Newmont Nevada permit, attached.

16 See proposed PSD permit for White Pine Energy Associates, attached.14 In addition, lower filterable PM10 emission ra tes are being achieved in practice. For example, Craig Unit #2 which was retrofitte d with a baghouse is achieving filterable
PM10 emission rates of 0.005 lb/MMBtu. 17

Thus, a PM10 BART limit for Boardman of 0.0 10 lb/MMBtu is more reflective of the best continuous system of PM10 emissi on reduction that can be achieved at the Boardman facility, and DEQ should im pose a BART limit no higher than 0.010
lb/MMBtu for PM10.

III. In Light of Claims of Past Illegal Modifications, BART Should Be Equivalent to
BACT.

In September 2008, a coalition of environmen tal groups files a comp laint against PG&E for, among other things, improper modificat ions made without obtaining a PSD permit and meeting BACT. DEQ should take these cl aims into account when deciding the level of control and pollution control equipment to satisfy BART requirements, since PG&E could ultimately be required to meet BACT requirements at the Boardman facility.

II. Shutdown Rule Amendment Proposals from PG&E

The shutdown alternative proposals from PG&E are important developments in the BART rulemaking and merit furthe r consideration. However, PG&E’s proposal does not contain a robust considera tion and analysis of relevant statutory factors or provide sufficient opportunity for public input. A shut down alternative BART proposal must include a full discus sion of the BART factors, demonstrate in a reasoned way that a decision to s hutdown would comply in a timely fashion with BART and the Regional Haze Rule , and provide opportunity for public comment. Although we recognize PG&E’s pr oposal includes some discussion of BART factors, most particularly the “remaining useful life” factor, a more complete analysis and weighing of th ese factors must be conducted by DEQ before a BART or Reasonable Progress is presented for public comment. In order to provide meaningful comment it is cri tical that the public has the benefit of transparent analysis by DEQ and is no tified of Federal Land Managers (FLM) comments regarding the proposal as well as DEQ’s response to FLM comments.

See 40 C.F.R. § 51.308(i)(2)(3) (requiring stat es to describe how they address comments received by the Federal Land Managers).

Although the BART guidelines do contempl ate allowing flexibility to choose between shut down and continued operat ion, PGE’s shut down proposal lacks essential information, and cannot be ev aluated to determine whether it is consistent with the guidelines’ stated intent to avoid cr eating a loophole that would allow for delays in emission reductions beyond the BART deadline. See 40 C.F.R. pt. 51 App. Y § IV.D.4.k.3; see also 70 Fed. Reg. 39,104, 39,127 (July 6, 2005) (“the option for providing flexib ility would not create a loophole for

17 See attached 2004 PM10 test results for Craig Unit #2.15 sources”). We note that the Clean Air Ac t requires sources to install and operate BART “as expeditiously as practicable,” which must be “in no event later than five years after the date of approval” of the regional haze SIP. 42 U.S.C. § 7491(b)(2)(A), (g)(4).

Comments submitted by the Pacific Envi ronmental Advocacy Center, on behalf of Sierra Club, Northwest Environmen tal Defense Center, Friends of the Columbia Gorge, Columbia Riverkeepe r, and Hells Canyon Preservation Council (collectively, “the Coalition”), also suggest an alternative to DEQ’s proposed
BART rule that includes shutdown of Bo ardman to achieve necessary pollution reductions to improve visibility in the re gion. The Coalition’s alternative, which includes more stringent emissions reduc tions and a much shorter timeline for shutdown, includes a discussion of how shutdown could meet the BART requirements. The Coalition’s proposal is supported by a dem onstration of the pollution reduction that could be achieved if Boardman shut down in 2016, rather than in 2029 as proposed by PGE.

Time is critical as other states are rely ing on reductions in emissions from the Boardman plant as they develop their long term strategy and reasonable progress goals for Class I areas located within their state. Indeed, othe r states are required to consult with Oregon if a Class I area lo cated in that state is affected by the emissions from the Boardman plant. See 40 C.F.R. § 51.308(d)(1)(iv). Oregon is affirmatively required to consult with t hose other states to develop coordinated emissions strategies. Id . § 51.308(d)(3)(i). As noted Oregon Regional Haze Plan,
emissions from Boardman cause or cont ribute to visibility impairment in mandatory Class I areas outside of Or egon. 2008 Oregon Regional Haze Plan at 65. If DEQ were to adopt the shutdown alternatives, it must articulate how regional haze goals would be met in the first and second planning periods and be
factored into reasonabl e progress goals.

Boardman’s future emissions will have direct harmful effects on human health and the environment in Oregon, and will im pact visibility in numerous Class I areas in Oregon and in other states unle ss appropriate action is taken during the BART process. PGE’s proposal delays shut down or meaningful control beyond the required BART deadline. If shutdown were to occur within five years of SIP approval, we believe this would clearl y satisfy BART. The Coalition’s proposed shut down timeframe may be the best way to achieve BART. We respectfully ask DEQ to fully analyze PG&E’s proposal for consideration by the FLM and the public, and to carry out an evaluation of the required statutory factors. The State’s leadership will ensure transp arency and an informed and reasoned decision-making process on a matter of enormous public interest.

Thank you again for the opportunity to comment.16 Sincerely,

Kevin Lynch
Environmental Defense Fund 2334 N. Broadway Boulder, CO 80304 (303) 447-7200 klynch@edf.org

Stephanie Kodish
Clean Air Counsel
National Parks Conservation Association 706 Walnut Street, Suite 200 Knoxville, TN 37902
865-329-2424 skodish@npca.org